I hope you had a chance to read the column "How to deal with the neo-con extremists", here is a summary of actual confrontation. The column I wrote on Secular Islam Summit under the title " A Muslim Bashing feeding frenzy" was published on 15th and right after that the frenzy has begun. It did not go very well with the neo-cons, and there is big splash about it on their website - Jihad Watch. I have prepared a response, and my friend Dr. Farooq has given some great hints on the topic, Robert Spencer said he will publish it, may be he will change his mind due to the content. We need an honest dialogue with the intent of working together. I hope they understand Islam-bashing is not the way. We are all one family and we have to work together.
Index:
1. A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – II
2. St. Petersburg declaration
3. A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – I
4. Moderate Muslims spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit
5. Comments from readers prior to the knowledge
A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – II
Mike Ghouse Thursday, March 15, 2007
One of the remarkable things about neo-cons is their temerity to claim a lock on the truth. I wrote a column called, “A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy” published at www.ReligionandSpirituality.com. True to its heading, the feeding frenzy has begun.
Robert Spencer made several interesting comments in his response, most of them based on the premise that the St. Petersburg declaration was ignored. A lot of questions emanated from that posit, I was not even asked if I had seen the declaration, and the whole commentary was built on the reckless assumption that I ignored the declaration, which was followed by the feeding frenzy of comments. I read the declaration after I had submitted the column for publication.
The declaration was a pleasant surprise indeed, much of which I subscribe to and some of it with enhancements. The full text of the declaration is appended at the end of this column.
Responses to Mr. Spencer’s issues in the sequence they appear;
1. In response to my question about just two Muslims in the conference about Muslims, Mr. Spencer responds “Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.” While I’m pleased to acknowledge it, that is still merely three Muslims speakers in a conference billed as Islam Summit.
2. My comment “the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims” was responded by references to the, “declaration” herein after will be referred to as declaration. When the summit was originally announced, there were only two Muslims on it (ok, three), who could be pressured to yield. One of the speakers told me he was given a slot that was not his specialty.
3. Mr. Spencer suggests “So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"? No Sir, it is not. Absolutely not. Islam bashing is loudly telling the American public "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time,” The intent is evil, and is to turn the average American against fellow Americans, terrorizing average Ali’s around the nation. That is not acceptable from a forum that calls its “Secular Islam Summit.”
4. Mr. Spencer, “Then lead it yourself… along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.” We appreciate that, we are all in it together and we need to work together. We have to adopt an approach that works. The bashing-approach of the Secular Islam Summit, the one you are defending, is counter-productive at best, which can be easily verified by the impression and reaction of the broader Muslim community in USA that is tolerant, peaceful and moderate.
Muslim community in North America has been publicly and categorically condemning extremism, violence and tyranny. What you do not understand about the psychology of reform is “telling the Christians the day after the documentary Lost Tomb is shown, to accept that Jesus was married”. That is not how reform works. Condemnatory criticism does not work with you, me or any soul on this earth, no matter how rational you are.
I am sure you found my direct response unpalatable, and you should expect that from every human being. The way reform works is to be with the group, to have the willingness to start from step 1, then two and three. You have to learn to climb the stairs one step at a time. If you want results NOW, then please don’t waste your time on it and blame every one for not willing. If you and I have the attitude to accept the change with grace, then we should preach every one to change at once. Many of us moderates are working on it; to be effective, one must practice patience and give room to the masses to accept and eventually own the reform.
5. The summit was blow and go. Most of the Americans heard it a few weeks in advance. Had you given the time and sincerely made the effort to really make the summit effective, you would have included many, and the reason I chose not to go was the parade of Islam-bashers coming to reform Islam from the first announcement. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen.
Indeed, there are notable, practicing Islamic intellectuals, scholars, academics and leaders who represent and have respect of the broader Muslim community and who regard capital punishment for apostasy, forced marriage, etc. as un-islamic and honor killing criminally liable. There are many among them who are assertive on the issues of freedom of faith, opinion and expression. They may not agree with Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin, but they do uphold their right to express their views and they disagree and disavow any fatwa against them. But not a SINGLE such person was present at the meeting.In another respect, this summit is major failure. While trying to grab so much attention of the American media and public, it failed to highlight the point that many conscientious Muslims, who believe in the democratic process, constitutional governments, freedom of faith and expression, women’s empowerment, are being persecuted or marginalized in their respective Muslim-majority countries – countries that are tyrannical AND our allies, patronized by our government.
All those who care about such reforms should join hands in fostering and facilitating it. Attacking or vilifying Islam and/or stereotyping Muslims with a broad-brush by primarily Islam bashers can’t accomplish this. This country has attracted so many Muslims from around the world, because this nation stands on the principle of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Unfortunately, our engagements have been rather consistently pandering the tyrants in the Muslim world.
Often the word “moderate” is misrepresented and misused. If by “moderate”, it is meant uncritical obeisance to our short-sighted policies and interests, then there might not be many moderates. However, if it means decent people who care about themselves, their families and communities and at the same time respect the life, honor and property of other human beings, irrespective of their background, the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam. Engaging that vast majority of Muslims is not possible through such Islam-bashing summit, but through mutually respectful dialog.
The neo-con vision of shoving their agenda down the throat of the Muslim world through unilateral interventions, as we are waking up to the rude reality in Iraq, is proving disastrous not only for this noble nation, but also it is further alienating the Muslim world and creating deeper wedge, which we must work together to reverse.
St. Petersburg Declaration
I am pleased to support this declaration with the following enhancements in parenthesis.
Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007
1. We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree. ( If secular means separation of Church and the State, I am all for it, however if it means, chasing God out of our lives, then I have no part in this document- My personal preference would be the phrase Pluralist Muslims)
2. We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.
3. We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.
4. We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.
5. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamophobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights. (The phrase ‘Muslim practices’ would be appropriate as opposed to Islamic practices – please remember, people make mistakes, not the religion)6. We call on the governments of the world to
a) reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; (I would substitute the phrase review Sharia instead of reject Sharia – it amounts to telling Mr. Spencer “I hate the way you smile, reject your style.” There has to be a process for the change to sustain, we cannot play with the lives of people stripping what has become the part of their lives, as the example of the Lost Tomb above. The word reject make you hold on to it very dearly, that is the case with the followers of every faith, not just Muslims. We have to understand the process of reform, if we want to embark on it, so that we don’t ruin it).
b) eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; [note: incidentally, not only none of these are Islamic practices, especially in a forced context, but also these are against Islam.]
c) protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;
d) reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;
e) And foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.
7. We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy. [note: “demand” by non-Muslims, ex-Muslims and Islam-bashers is hardly conducive to engage the Muslim community toward the desired reform.]
8. We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.
9. We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;
a) to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai’s, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens; ( Please re-state to be all inclusive; Bahai, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Jewish, Muslims, Sikhs, Shinto, Wicca’s, Zoroastrians and all other faiths – the legendary Medina declaration was signed by leaders of all communities and Prophet Muhammad for fair and equal treatment of all Citizens of Medina State)
b) and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.10. Before any of us is a member of the Ummah, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves. (Again make it inclusive – Before any of us is a member of any exclusive community, we are...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme " good for Muslims and good for the world." Mike believes that if people can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. His articles can be found at http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ , http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com
###############################
A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy - I
Guest Commentary
Mike Ghouse President,
Foundation for Pluralism
March 14, 2007
As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.
But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims. The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers.
The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.
The intent of the conference was bad from the start. Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.
In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."
The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress. If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.
In its coverage, the St. Petersburg Times appropriately gave time to those who looked at the meeting with a skeptical eye, noting that Georgetown University scholar Yvonne Haddad said, "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam." In contrast, CNN's Beck paraded these personalities on TV as if they carried weight in the Muslim world. CNN and Beck were had.
In an hour-long report, Beck featured the supposed dangers the organizers faced. A woman who called herself "Raquel Saraswati" claimed she was a practicing Muslim and expressed fears about being No. 4 on a list of Muslims ashamed of being a Muslim because she used to model. As Ahmed Bedier, an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations in Florida, said: These were folks who are "cashing and bashing." I have differences with CAIR on some points, but he was in tune with most Muslims' opinion about the summit.
Beck brought Manda Zand Ervin, founder and president of Alliance of Iranian Women, a group that describes itself as a human rights organization, on camera, and she went so far as to say that Muslims want a global caliphate in which we will throw Christians and Jews into the sea. I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea. Beck failed to ask her tough questions to find about the not-so-hidden agenda that appears to motivate her and so many others at this supposed Muslim gathering: fear mongering.
Shame on CNN.
Shame on Beck.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Ghouse is a home builder and activist based in Dallas. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress, organizations dedicated to peaceful coexistence. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. © copyright 2007 by Mike Ghouse.
###############################
Moderate Muslims spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit
By Robert Spencer
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015663.php« Al-Jazeera: "The Muslim Brotherhood channel"MainThe poverty/terror myth »March 15, 2007
In "A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy" at Religion and Spirituality.com, Mike Ghouse of the Foundation for Pluralism retails several obvious falsehoods about the Secular Islam Summit. And like CAIR, he completely ignores the question of whether or not he agrees with the St. Petersburg Declaration, which enunciates principles that any moderate Muslim ought to be able to endorse.
As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.
But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.
Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.
Ghouse here seems to have lost track of what he just wrote. There were no moderate Muslims? What about Hasan Mahmud and Manji, whom he just mentioned?
And as for "They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear," this is just a smear. In fact, the St. Petersburg Declaration says, "We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine..." To hear Ghouse tell it, it says, "We say to Muslim believers: disappear." Hogwash.
The intent of the conference was bad from the start.
What was bad about it, Mr. Ghouse? The affirmation of "the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience" and "the equality of all human persons"? Or was it the insistence on "the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights"? Or could it have been the call to "eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women"?
What exactly do you find objectionable, Mr. Ghouse? Be specific, please.
Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.
So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"?In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."
Fine. Then lead it yourself, Mr. Masmoudi. Issue an endorsement of the Declaration. Surely there is nothing in it to which you object, is there? You are allowing your distaste for the panelists to overshadow the real subject here, which is the reform of Islam. Ex-Muslims did the job, along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.
The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.
This is mostly just a base ad hominem attack, but as far as Sultan's statement goes, unfortunately, the presence of a Muslim in Congress does not disprove it. The only thing that would disprove it would be a large-scale public renunciation, accompanied by actions, of the ideology of Islamic supremacism by Muslims. Mr. Ghouse offers a renunciation of this kind later in this article, saying, "I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea." I hope he will follow this up with active efforts within the Islamic community to foster the principles expressed in the St. Petersburg Declaration.
If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims.The import of what you are saying here, Mr. Ghouse, that these Muslim speakers should have been happy to appear at the Summit with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. Yet you yourself refused to go. So you're saying that others should have done what you wouldn't do yourself.
The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.
You charge them with dishonesty after writing an article like this?Posted by Robert at March 15, 2007 08:15 AM###############################
No comments:
Post a Comment